More on the watershed DCCC event from BeyondChron.org

Dear Rob;
Small little point of order the ballot measure got a unanimous LPSF straw poll YES but the official YES endorsement will have to wait until the Sept.13 LPSF meeting.
But if the "progressives" central committee Democrats could only muster an 18-12 with 3 abstentions I agree there is no there - there to emulate and based on their votes recommendations it's the same old Democratic tax and tax and tax and spend and spend and spend.
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni

Yes, good point Ron. It was just a straw poll. It's always possible
that the attendance at our official endorsement meeting could double,
making the prostitution decrim endorsement vote much closer. Of
course, those would all have to be new members, because I'm not aware
of any of the current paid members who would oppose the measure. I
suppose if that many new dues-paying people showed up, the silver
lining would be that it would fix our treasury problem.

Sadly for our treasury, I expect the official endorsement vote in a
few weeks to also be unanimous. I still think the results of the
straw poll need to be broadcast to the supporters of the decrim measure.

Rob

Dear Rob;
Small little point of order the ballot measure got a unanimous LPSF

straw poll YES but the official YES endorsement will have to wait
until the Sept.13 LPSF meeting.

But if the "progressives" central committee Democrats could only

muster an 18-12 with 3 abstentions I agree there is no there - there
to emulate and based on their votes recommendations it's the same old
Democratic tax and tax and tax and spend and spend and spend.

Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni

From: Rob <chair@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 4:34:40 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: More on the watershed DCCC event from

BeyondChron.org

I've got to say that I don't feel like emulating the DCCC in any way,
shape, or form.

On that note, I hope every effort is being made to the sex workers
community to show that the prostitution decrim measure just barely got
endorsement from "the most progressive DCCC ever", while it got
unanimous endorsement from the LPSF. If that doesn't give pause to
some of the sex worker folks about their support of "progressivism,"
nothing will.

Rob

--- In lpsf-discuss@...m, Starchild <sfdreamer@> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Marcy! Since we didn't manage to really discuss this

at the

> meeting Saturday, I'd like to request a vote of the officers to make
> it happen. Unless somebody else has a better idea how to engage more
> fully in local politics.
>
> On a separate but related topic, I think we should also make

time

> for Jawg Greenwald to tell us about her experience serving on the
> civil grand jury. She's our only appointed local libertarian that

I'm

> aware of -- how many of us even know what she's been doing?
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
>
>
> > Couldn't agree more with Starchild on this one. I would be more than
> > happy to assist in plans for candidates/ballot night.
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> > >
> > > The article below gets into the kind of detail that I feel we as
> > > local libertarian activists should be paying attention to. We,

as a

> > > group, need to have more of a passion for, and an engagement with,
> > > the politics of this town if we are really going to be

effective. We

> > > need to be able to get into the thick of things, cultivate
> > alliances,
> > > work on single issues, etc., without compromising an inch on

what we

> > > believe in and ultimately want to achieve. We are often too
> > > collectively insular, too uninformed, I think. Many of the

people I

> > > see speaking out at neighborhood group meetings and such are
> > > political country dolts when it comes to understanding

liberty, but

> > > they are often more in touch with, and have a better grasp of the
> > > issues and the players in local politics than most in our group.
> > >
> > > I would like to know whether others understand what I'm talking
> > > about here, see the importance of it. What do people think of my
> > > previously posted suggestion that we co-host a candidate and

ballot

> > > measure event with other pro-freedom and single-issue groups

as a

> > way
> > > in part of developing more of this kind of practical political
> > > knowledge on an institutional level?
> > >
> > > Love & Liberty,
> > > ((( starchild )))
> > >
> > >
> > > > This is the most progressive Committee I have seen in 3 decades.
> > > > Never before has every single progressive ballot measure passed.
> > > > And never before has every single moderate-conservative

candidate

> > > > been stopped. Amazing.
> > > >
> > > > Congrats to us on Decrim. We rock!
> > > >
> > > > Rick Hauptman
> > > >
> > > > From: slava@ <slava@>
> > > > Subject: [espu-members] article on the DCCC last night
> > > > To: espu-members@
> > > > Cc: carol@
> > > > Date: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 11:36 AM
> > > >
> > > > http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5977
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Progressives Take Over S.F. Democratic Party
> > > > by Paul Hogarth? Aug. 14? 2008
> > > >
> > > > Review it on NewsTrust
> > > >
> > > > This is not Willie Brown?s Democratic County Central Committee
> > anymore
> > > > ? nor is it Gavin Newsom?s. San Francisco Mayors used to
> > control what
> > > > happens at the DCCC ? when the influential body would vote on
> > > > endorsements. But last night, progressives secured the party?s
> > > > endorsement for November?s busy election ? from Eric Mar,

David

> > Chiu,
> > > > David Campos and John Avalos for Supervisor to the Clean

Energy

> > Act,
> > > > two revenue Measures, the Housing Charter Amendment and opposing
> > > > JROTC. Even College Board incumbent Rodel Rodis only got five
> > votes ?
> > > > hurting his re-election prospects. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
> > didn?t
> > > > send her proxy ? which may have been to avoid voting on the

Clean

> > > > Energy Act. But last night?s ?progressive rout? was not without
> > > > controversy: by a slim majority, the DCCC endorsed a ballot
> > measure to
> > > > decriminalize prostitution. And after failing to reach a
> > position on
> > > > Newsom?s Community Justice Center, members did a re-vote ? in
> > which a
> > > > majority voted to endorse ?no.?
> > > >
> > > > Last night?s endorsement meeting at the DCCC ? a pre-election
> > ritual
> > > > to determine how the Party endorses in local ballot skirmishes ?
> > > > proved how decisive running a progressive slate in June had

been.

> > > > Supervisors Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin?s decision to run a
> > ticket of
> > > > DCCC candidates changed the makeup of a body long run by more
> > moderate
> > > > politicos.
> > > >
> > > > We started to see this change shortly after the June

election ?

> > when
> > > > the new DCCC elected Peskin as Chair over incumbent Scott
> > Wiener. But
> > > > Peskin?s narrow 18-16 victory underestimated the extent at how
> > much
> > > > the DCCC?s ideological bent had shifted ? because Wiener had
> > gotten
> > > > many votes from progressive members.
> > > >
> > > > But last night, we saw it?s a totally different ballgame.
> > Progressive
> > > > candidates for Supervisor triumphed ? while moderate

candidates

> > Sue
> > > > Lee, Claudine Cheng, Eva Royale and Ahsha Safai failed to

even get

> > > > endorsed as the party?s second (or third) choice in their
> > respective
> > > > districts. A moderate incumbent on the College Board only

got five

> > > > votes, while newcomers got the party nod. And for the 22 local
> > > > propositions on the November ballot, generally the progressive
> > > > position got the DCCC?s stamp of approval.
> > > >
> > > > Progressives Dominate Proposition Endorsements ?
> > > >
> > > > At a recent Harvey Milk Club meeting, Board of Supervisors
> > President
> > > > Aaron Peskin promised ?we will not go beyond Proposition Z? on
> > this
> > > > November ballot ? capping the total number at 26. Peskin lived
> > up to
> > > > that pledge, but we will still go up to Proposition V ? making
> > it a
> > > > very crowded ballot, and thus an extremely long DCCC

meeting. The

> > > > meeting started at 7:00 p.m., and public comment lasted

until 9:15

> > > > p.m. ? with dozens of speakers ready to pack the room and
> > urging the
> > > > Committee members to endorse or oppose various measures.
> > > >
> > > > With a very substantive ballot ? which includes a hospital
> > bond, two
> > > > revenue measures, a housing charter amendment and a Clean
> > Energy Act ?
> > > > there was potentially a lot to talk about. But the two

measures

> > that
> > > > elicited the most public comment were both citizen-initiated
> > > > propositions that dealt with a highly emotional issue: (a) an
> > > > ordinance to de-criminalize prostitution, and (b) a policy
> > statement
> > > > supporting JROTC in public schools.
> > > >
> > > > On the Hospital Bond at SF General, the Committee didn?t even
> > take a
> > > > roll call vote ? it was endorsed by acclamation. Aaron Peskin?s
> > > > Revenue Measures to raise the real estate transfer tax and fix a
> > > > loophole in the business payroll tax passed 27-3 and 30-1,
> > > > respectively. Even the Affordable Housing Charter Amendment ?
> > which
> > > > Newsom has vowed to oppose ? passed 25-6, with 2 abstentions.
> > The ?no?
> > > > votes were from DCCC members Tom Hsieh, Mary Jung, Matt

Tuchow,

> > and
> > > > Scott Wiener ? plus the proxies for Senator Dianne Feinstein and
> > > > Congresswoman Jackie Speier.
> > > >
> > > > The Clean Energy Act ? which has already gotten hit pieces

from

> > PG&E ?
> > > > got the endorsement by a vote of 22-6 (with 5 abstentions.)
> > Virtually
> > > > the same people who opposed the Housing Charter Amendment voted
> > > > against the Clean Energy Act ? while progressives stuck
> > together on
> > > > vote after vote with lopsided wins. Earlier this week, I

called

> > upon
> > > > House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to support the Clean Energy Act,

noting

> > > > that she could vote at the DCCC to endorse it. Pelosi was

the only

> > > > ex-officio member not to send a proxy to last night?s

meeting ?

> > so we
> > > > still don?t know where she stands.
> > > >
> > > > The DCCC voted by wide margins to endorse propositions to (1)
> > require
> > > > mental health treatment on demand, (2) raise the number of
> > signatures
> > > > required to recall a Supervisor, (3) hold city elections in
> > > > even-numbered years, (4) beef up the City?s historic
> > preservation law,
> > > > (5) make it City policy to defund the War in Iraq, (5) give
> > retirement
> > > > credit to city employees who took unpaid parental leave, and (6)
> > > > protect tenants from landlord harassment.
> > > >
> > > > In a blow to Gavin Newsom, the DCCC rejected many of the Mayor?s
> > > > propositions. By a whopping 26-5 margin, they endorsed a ?no?
> > vote on
> > > > his effort to restructure the County Transportation

Authority ?

> > which
> > > > many view as a mayoral power grab. The ?no more set-asides?
> > measure
> > > > (which Newsom proposed shortly after Daly?s Housing

Amendment) was

> > > > rejected by a vote of 13-19. And Supervisor Michela

Alioto-Pier?s

> > > > proposal to create a new ?independent rate-payer advocate? ?

which

> > > > many progressives believe is designed to defeat the Clean
> > Energy Act ?
> > > > got the thumbs down last night by a 19-10 vote.
> > > >
> > > > As for the two emotional propositions, the Committee voted to
> > reject
> > > > the JROTC policy statement 20-10 (with 3 abstentions) ? as many
> > > > questioned why school leadership skills must rely on a military
> > > > program. They endorsed the measure to Decriminalize
> > Prostitution by an
> > > > 18-12 majority (with 3 abstentions) ? despite concerns about how
> > > > poorly written the measure is. DCCC member Michael Bornstein

noted

> > > > that the initiative says it can be modified by a two-thirds
> > vote at
> > > > the Board of Supervisors.
> > > >
> > > > One endorsement vote was not without controversy. On the

Community

> > > > Justice Center, DCCC member Hene Kelly asked why this

measure was

> > > > still on the ballot ? since the Board of Supervisors had already
> > > > agreed to fund it. Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who was in the
> > audience
> > > > at the time, said because Chris Daly had promised to defund it
> > after a
> > > > new progressive Board comes into office. The Committee then
> > voted ?
> > > > and with many members abstaining, failed to get sufficient
> > votes to
> > > > take a ?yes? or ?no? position.
> > > >
> > > > Because the Committee had taken no action, Chris Daly moved

for a

> > > > re-vote at the very end of the meeting ? which upset some
> > moderates,
> > > > because Tom Hsieh and Meagan Levitan (who had voted ?yes?
> > earlier) had
> > > > left for the night. With fewer abstentions, the DCCC endorsed
> > a ?no?
> > > > vote. Aaron Peskin said, however, that the two votes would not
> > have
> > > > altered the outcome. The DCCC also took no position on

renaming

> > the
> > > > Sewage Treatment Plant after George Bush ? but nobody asked

for a

> > > > re-vote later on.
> > > >
> > > > Progressives Dominate College Board Endorsements ?
> > > >
> > > > During the meeting?s public comment period, activist Roy Recio
> > urged
> > > > the DCCC not to endorse longtime College Board incumbent Rodel
> > Rodis ?
> > > > ?because he has not expressed good judgment in the past, and the
> > > > Pilipino community does not support him.? When it came time

for

> > the
> > > > Committee to make endorsements, Rodis only got five votes.
> > Because the
> > > > Community College Board is such a low-profile position,
> > endorsements ?
> > > > especially the DCCC ? matter a great deal. This may doom Rodis?
> > > > chances of re-election.
> > > >
> > > > The Committee also endorsed College Board incumbents Natalie
> > Berg and
> > > > Milton Marks ? the latter who has earned much respect from
> > > > progressives (including an endorsement by the Harvey Milk
> > Club.) Two
> > > > young candidates for College Board ? Chris Jackson and Steve

Ngo ?

> > > > also got the DCCC endorsement, which will seriously boost their
> > > > campaign.
> > > >
> > > > Progressives Dominate Board of Supervisors Endorsements ?
> > > >
> > > > Given the progressive composition of the DCCC, there was never
> > much
> > > > doubt about which candidates for the Board of Supervisors

would

> > get
> > > > the endorsement ? at least for first place. But because Ranked
> > Choice
> > > > Voting decides these elections, the Committee reserved the
> > option of
> > > > endorsing up to three choices for Supervisor in each District.
> > > >
> > > > If a Democratic candidate for Supervisor failed to get the

party?s

> > > > endorsement for ?first choice? in their district, they could

still

> > > > potentially get endorsed as ?second? or ?third choice.?
> > Therefore, not
> > > > getting a ranked endorsement is really a reflection that the

DCCC

> > > > effectively doesn?t support that candidate.
> > > >
> > > > After Eric Mar secured the ?first-choice? endorsement for
> > District 1,
> > > > the DCCC debated whether his main opponents ? Sue Lee or

Alicia

> > Wang ?
> > > > should get a ?second choice? or ?third choice? endorsement. ?
> > Whatever
> > > > your position is on Ranked Choice Voting,? said Scott

Wiener, ?the

> > > > City adopted it. And when you have multiple qualified strong
> > > > candidates, we?ve typically endorsed them. We need to be as
> > diverse a
> > > > party as possible.? But Rafael Mandelman argued that there were
> > > > ?significant differences? ? especially on tenants? rights ?
> > between
> > > > Mar and the other candidates.
> > > >
> > > > When it came time to vote for a ?second choice? in District

1, No

> > > > Endorsement got 18 votes, Plan C member Sue Lee got 11 votes and
> > > > Alicia Wang got 3 votes. Only Eric Mar would get the

Democratic

> > Party
> > > > endorsement.
> > > >
> > > > In District 3, David Chiu easily got the endorsement for ?first
> > > > choice.? Some members then argued that Denise McCarthy

should get

> > > > endorsed for ?second choice? because: (a) she?s a

progressive with

> > > > similar views to Chiu, and (b) it?s important for the party to
> > endorse
> > > > a viable woman candidate. But Chris Daly argued that McCarthy
> > was not
> > > > a true progressive ? citing her record on the Port Commission.
> > Peskin
> > > > disputed some of the points that Daly raised, and McCarthy

won the

> > > > ?second choice? endorsement.
> > > >
> > > > No District 3 candidate got enough votes to earn a ?third

choice?

> > > > endorsement ? despite efforts by the moderates to push

Claudine

> > Cheng.
> > > >
> > > > In District 9, David Campos got the ?first choice? endorsement
> > with 22
> > > > votes ? followed by Eva Royale at 9 votes and Eric Quezada

at 8

> > votes
> > > > (another candidate, Mark Sanchez, was ineligible for the DCCC
> > > > endorsement because he?s a Green.) After the vote, Chris Daly
> > urged
> > > > his colleagues to give Quezada the ?second choice?
> > endorsement. ?It
> > > > would be a disappointment to shut him out after all the years
> > he put
> > > > it on for the community.?
> > > >
> > > > But Quezada failed to get enough votes to earn a ?second choice?
> > > > endorsement. Neither did Royale, and so the DCCC only endorsed
> > Campos
> > > > for District 9.
> > > >
> > > > In District 11 John Avalos beat Ahsha Safai for the ?first

choice?

> > > > endorsement by a 19-13 vote. State Senator Carole Migden?s proxy
> > > > initially voted for Julio Ramos, but switched their vote to

Avalos

> > > > when it looked close. Safai then failed to get ?second choice?
> > > > endorsement by a 17-15 vote. Aaron Peskin initially voted for
> > Randy
> > > > Knox, but switched his vote to No Endorsement when it looked
> > like a
> > > > close outcome.
> > > >
> > > > Supervisors Carmen Chu (District 4) and Sean Elsbernd

(District

> > 7) got
> > > > the DCCC endorsement with little difficulty ? in part

because most

> > > > progressives voted for them. In District 5, the Committee

voted by

> > > > acclamation to do No Endorsement in the race ? in part because
> > many
> > > > support Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who as a Green cannot get the
> > > > Democratic endorsement. Mirkarimi faces no serious opposition.
> > > >
> > > > The DCCC postponed endorsements for the School Board until

August

The LPSF endorsed the measure before the straw poll, when we were circulating the petition to get it on the ballot.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))